Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange Platform Reviews

Zscaler functions as a kind of proxy, but they lack responsiveness when it comes to customer requests. The granularity in blocking is not sufficient. For example, when a new domain is detected, it is automatically blocked for 30 days. If there is no further information, it is added to the trusted list. Attackers are aware of this and take advantage of it. They set up a benign site, get it categorized as safe, and then introduce malicious content afterward. Trying to get the categories reassigned or realigned is a challenge, as Zscaler is not very responsive in addressing such issues. In my experience, compared to BlueCoat, Zscaler falls short in terms of responsiveness.

I'm currently reviewing Zscaler for our organization. We implemented it about two years ago. It's part of our zero-trust architecture initiative. 

However, we need to compare it with NetScout. Zscaler has certain capabilities like SD-WAN, and the proxy is quite good. Although, I had to stop using SD-WAN because it wasn't integrating well with Microsoft or Kaspersky.

It is stable. In my experience of about five years, I have only encountered two problems caused by it. So, I wouldn't rate it a nine out of ten. It's generally stable, with occasional issues.

The scalability is pretty good. I would give it an eight out of ten. However, their responsiveness to customer concerns is not as strong as other vendors I have worked with.

There is definitely an ROI. Before I joined my current company, it was implemented about a year and a half ago, and it significantly reduced noise and improved team visibility. The SOC has always been satisfied with its performance. 

So, I believe there has been a good return on investment compared to my company's previous solution, Fortinet, which wasn't very effective. We are very happy with Zscaler.

When it was implemented, it beat the competition on price according to the two companies I know that have it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

With Private Access, from TCS, we used to support multiple customers. Some of our customers will be utilizing Private Access and we'll be supporting them. 

Mainly due to the COVID pandemic situation, many people now work from home. When working from home they needed better connectivity for a VPN solution. That is the main criteria and customers are looking for a stable solution, a cloud-based solution, which can be integrated quickly and can be managed centrally. That is the driving point. The pandemic situation was the driver, as clients needed to add capacity also. Earlier, they would give this remote access solution only to a few people. Now nearly 90% of people work from home. The capacity has to be increased. For that, clients were looking for a multi-net solution and they started deploying Private Access.

The VPN is great for the stability on offer and for the cloud updates and insights you can get. We can protect the application well. There's no need to broadcast my network. Only the application will be visible, those kinds of things are very salient features.

The pricing is good as far as I know, although I don't have an idea of the exact pricing.

It offers great user-friendliness.

We like the customization capabilities.

It's straightforward to set up.

The scalability is good.

So far, we are happy with the solution. I can't speak to any missing features. Based on the customer feedback, they're doing good. We don't see any negative point at this point in time.

I've been using this solution for nearly three or four years. Some of our clients just started using the solution for one year.

The solution is scalable and expands well. 

I don't directly deal with technical support. 

Earlier, we used to stick with on-prem solutions, and compared to on-prem, we are leveraging all the cloud benefits. With this product, the updates and signatures will be there, live updates will be there, et cetera. We don't have to worry about all those updates from a Private Access point of view. From a security perspective, you're adding a lot of security to the VPN solution. Everything is fine.

I'm not involved in the initial setup. My job is to recommend the solution and another team will be doing the setup. We're a larger organization, so there are different teams that work with customers and provide solutions.

That said, my understanding is that the initial setup is very straightforward. 

The client needs to be deployed to the user machine. That typically is done with the Active Directory integration. If you are going to deploy it for multiple people, we need to deploy it, we need to push it using AD group policy or any other software distribution.  Other than that, it is easy only to deploy. We don't see much difficulty.

If we win that proposal, definitely our team will be involved in helping with the setup. 

I cannot speak to the exact licensing costs. 

We don't see any other, private, cloud-based VPN solution. There might be others, like Prisma, and there are so many solutions also coming out. Other than that, we are ready to explore new products. However, so far, whatever we have used within the Zscaler solution is doing good.

I work for a consultancy. My customers are manufacturing customers.

We recommend the solution to customers looking for a kind of non-cloud-based VPN solution.

Typically we will use the latest version of the solution. 

While there are so many customers still having on-premise solutions, we would definitely suggest cloud-based solutions and Zscaler would be in the top three we would recommend.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are using Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange for its Zscaler Internet Access service. It provides web security, DLP, data protection, prevention, and lots more features.

It has improved our organization’s working process and efficiency.

It has some good data security and WIP features, providing secure Internet access. We get seamless access with our agents and users. It has some fantastic hardware. They have AI-powered integration with in-built features for the scheduler. It provides security and is connected to manage the security level, which is good.

The solution needs to improve a lot of aspects.

I have been using Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange for more than one year.

I don’t contact the support, but my team usually does.

Previously, I used Citrix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took almost three months to deploy, but it was smooth.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I primarily use it for conducting security incident investigations and generating security reports. It serves as a valuable tool in analyzing and responding to security events, and its capabilities are instrumental in producing comprehensive reports on the security status of the network.

It proved to be invaluable in addressing our challenge of not having a rigid perimeter. With employees working from various locations, the need to move away from VPN reliance became apparent. Following thorough assessments, we opted to continue using it as our cloud Web Access solution.

It stands out for its seamless integration with various security solutions, such as EDR, SOAR, etc. The implementation process is straightforward, requiring minimal ongoing maintenance. The desktop agent enhances endpoint protection against zero-day vulnerabilities, providing a safeguard until patches are released. Its adaptability extends beyond a single solution, allowing integration with different models and solutions. The alert detection system and additional security features add an extra layer of appeal. The flexibility to start with one aspect and expand within a single vendor is advantageous. The agent's versatility is notable, used for digital experience monitoring to collect valuable endpoint metrics for troubleshooting. The security browser function distinguishes between known safe sites and potentially suspicious ones, ensuring a secure browsing experience. Unfamiliar websites are run in the Zscaler Cloud, isolating them from the endpoint and preventing potential phishing or malicious scripts from reaching the user's device.

Occasionally, there are certain delays in report generation. Clicking on a link, I found myself waiting for an unpredictable duration—sometimes as long as thirty seconds to a minute—until the report was ready.

I have been working with it for over a year.

There have been instances where certain software or applications on the user side didn't work smoothly. This posed an additional onboarding challenge, requiring collaboration with technical support to analyze logs, generate reports, and identify necessary exclusions or policies to rectify the issue. Once addressed, the applications resumed normal functioning.

It's highly scalable, and I frequently receive notifications about new data center expansions. With around five thousand endpoints, I am not aware of any problems that have been discussed as requiring a change of solution.

I gained access to the web console, and within an hour, I comprehended its capabilities, which I found appealing. Beyond predefined reports, the platform enables users to retrieve any imaginable information. Creating a visual search request is a straightforward process, delivering the required data through a user-friendly interface.

The implementation has effectively addressed numerous challenges related to ensuring a secure internet connection for users.

When we conducted assessments, Cisco and Microsoft were also considered. However, at that time, Cisco was in the initial stages of developing their solution, and Microsoft had just released their web security gateway.

When making a decision, choosing a market leader is often advisable. While the initial cost may be slightly higher, the long-term savings in both time and money, as well as the reduction in operational costs, often outweigh the investment. Opting for a leading product can also mitigate potential issues and challenges that might arise with newer or less-established alternatives. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use Zscaler Cloud DLP to maintain data load and for storage reports. 

The solution is the best for storage. 

We have issues with the tool's maintenance and networking. It should be able to work in offline mode as well. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

Zscaler Cloud DLP is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has 250-300 users. 

Zscaler Cloud DLP's installation is difficult. 

Zscaler Cloud DLP is moderately priced. We pay around 2 million rupees per year. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have found that Zscaler SASE is a good product and we use it as a proxy.

Zscaler SASE is probably the number one cloud-based proxy security solution. Just on name recognition alone, I would say that is the main value it is bringing right now.

The management of the product has to be clearly defined or they will conflict. Sometimes you have to add bypass rules allowing specific websites access for internal purposes or for it to completely bypass altogether.  Make sure that it is the same teams who are managing the firewalls and the product. They should all be on the same team. If you have two teams managing it separately, you are going to run into a lot of problems.

I have been using Zscaler SASE for the past three years.

It is very stable. I have never seen it go down, not once, but then again I do not manage that portion specifically.

Zscaler SASE looks to be scalable to me.  We have about seven hundred and fifty using it in the USA and two hundred in Europe.

We were using another product before switching over to Zscaler SASE because it is number one.

It is pretty straightforward and does not create any major challenges. You whitelist specific URLs to either be allowed or to be bypassed.

We do deployment in-house. It is just a click and that is it.

The pricing is expensive and on the higher end. Honestly, in my opinion, it is not worth the price. 

I would rate Zscaler SASE an eight out of ten.

Increase performance, stability and Secure Remote access for Remote Users. 

Two great features that we really like on the solution are the Internet Access and Private Access. The path solutions available that help protect the customer's internet access and ensuring B2B secure access are great.

The scalability of the solution is great.

The solution offers very good performance.

Due to the fact that it's a multi-tenant hosted environment, it should be noted that other solutions, like Palo Alto, are single-tenant solutions. It's the customer that's hosting it, it's a single tenant. Zscaler hosts a SaaS solution and a multi-tenant, not a single-tenant environment. It would be nice if they offered that as well. This is where probably Zscaler can differentiate itself.

There are latency issues with the solution. They are small, however, they are there when you compare it to other vendors. These things only come up when you're talking to enterprise customers who are really looking at those things. For smaller to mid-sized customers, Zscaler makes more sense. These things make it cheaper and more efficient, as well, for Zscaler. 

I am actually a technical field engineer. I make solutions that help customers with different products. I don't use it personally. I sell it to different customers. 

The scalability of the solution is top of the line. It's one of its great selling features. Users can scale easily if and when they need to.

In terms of how many people use it typically, it depends on the company size. If you're like the last one I worked with, which was an enterprise customer, you can have five, 10, even all 5,000 users that, especially here in COVID times, are working remotely. It depends on the size of the organization and depends on the roles of people who need the secure access. 

An enterprise customer who has 5,000, 10,000 users, for example, will find that most of the users who need secure access to it, depending on the data you're hosting, will be at about 50-60%. They may not be on it one time, but that's where the licensing will be. At least 50-60% of the users, or the workforce in the company. This will only increase due to the COVID times when people are working more remotely.

I personally have never used technical support. However, I also haven't heard any complaints from customers in relation to the level of support they provide. It must be okay if we haven't heard anything.

I also sell Palo Alto as well.

I have been selling Zscaler, however, I only have had hands-on experience in Palo Alto. I don't have answers yet on Zscaler. The last hands-on experience I had on any device was two and a half years ago when I was more involved. I am just technical sales now. 

I haven't deployed the solution yet myself.  I wouldn't be able to comment on the process. I don't know if it's complex or straightforward.

That said, from what I've seen in customers that have deployed it, I've never really heard a bad comment from anyone who is using it.

I'm not a direct customer, so I don't know what the exact cost of the solution is, on average. It would depend on the company's size.

We're a Zscaler partner.

When you implement Zscaler, you're actually utilizing the best of what the technology has to offer. 

I've only heard good things about the solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

When I am outside of the company, I use Zscaler Private Access. I use Zscaler Private Access in the home, hotel, or wherever for remote working. It is a VPN.

We have a minimum of three to five thousand users minimum supported with Zscaler Private Access. It could be much more. They use it in the same way that I am using it. 

We have more solutions for connection with third party suppliers where we include contacts.

The only advantage I see is no more connection is required by the users. It is attached to the single-side logon with our key directory. That is the most valuable feature. 

With AT&T, we had another way to connect with the user. We had no single-side logon solution. Zscaler Private Access is a single-side logon solution.

We don't need to connect anymore. It is automatically connected when you log on in Windows. That is the only advantage I see because it is a bit slower.

We are supporting our supply-chain in India. Our connections through Zscaler have degraded drastically. Improvements are required in speed and bandwidth. 

The biggest disadvantage is there are no SCMP network layers available. The older network connection checks cannot be done because it's not included in the solution. 

We are programming our old solutions and they have not included support for legacy Windows. This is a huge disadvantage for me.

SCMP support would be one of the biggest improvements in my opinion. More speed improvements are also required. Very simple. 

If I need to monitor a third party supplier, if I have no SCMP, I cannot do the monitoring.

Some data may be cached if it is not available. This another important issue we have which needs to be improved, i.e. when the availability is not given the cache should not be used. 

At least we need Zscaler Private Access to make sure that the cache represents what is available to the users.

I am not involved in technical support for Zscaler Private Access. I create a ticket in our technical system and wait for an answer. I am still a project leader for this.

Everything is predefined so there is no mistake possible. Zscaler Private Access is attached to the active directory user. It is very easy. It is good.

We deployed with a system and it went very quick. It's a cloud solution. There is no private software to set up. Zscaler Private Access is quite easy and convenient in this way.

The installation was done at the global level. We did not use a reseller. Our company has since been merged with another corporation. We have now ninety thousand employees.

I was not involved in the choice of the solution. This was decided by our global network people.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Zscaler Private Access at only a three or four. 

The biggest disadvantage is the lack of SCMP network systems.  Also, the quality of the bandwidth is limited. We use normal internet access, not a fiber-optic line. 

The difference is huge, like flying in first-class vs. economy class. We stay in the economy class. The commercial company is saving money, but the end-user has lost the experience.